HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

Re:HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over las... by woodruffw on Sunday September 03, 2017 @11:04PM (#15165415)

You're right, which is why popularity isn't the sole factor in determining whether to remove a formula from the core repository. It's just one of the things we reference to justify our choice, when relevant.

We generally only refer to popularity after a formula comes up on our radar due to failing other sniff tests. To give you an idea for some of them:

1. Multiple subsequent releases without anybody bothering to update the formula

2. Historical problems with the package (flaky builds, complex build systems)

3. Historical problems with the upstream (patches ignored, unwillingness to cooperate with packagers, unreliable download servers)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over las... by dredmorbius on Sunday September 03, 2017 @11:16PM (#15165463)

Criticality in workflow might also be a consideration. I'd have to check how homebrew does this, but Debian frequently has separate documentation and debug packages as supplements to core functionality. Those might be essential in cases.

Since homebrew is aimed mostly at technical types and devs, build tools themselves are probably fairly highly featured, but those are easy things to lose in large general-public releases. (Android's abysmally poor shell tools come to mind.)

Sounds like a pretty good basic set. The flaky builds criterion in particular seems like a strong signal of a low-quality upstream.

[ Parent | on HN ]